The Priest a Man, Not an Angel. (Homily on Peter and Elias, Benedictine Edition, Tom. Ii., P. 730.)
Why is it that so few are here to day? We commemorate the martyrs, and no one comes; the distance has made man soft, or rather not the distance, but their softness has been the impediment. Just as nothing can hinder readiness and alertness of will, so everything serves as a hindrance to an irresolute and desponding man. The martyrs shed their blood for the truth: can you not make light even of a long way? They laid down their head for Christ: will you not even come out of the city for your Lord? He died for you, and are you lukewarm in His service? You are commemorating the martyrs, and are you discouraged and remiss? You should come and see the devil humbled, and the martyr triumphing, God glorified, and the Church crowned. What is your excuse? ‘I am a sinner and I cannot come.’ That is the very reason why you should come so that you may not be quite lost. Tell me what man is without sin? This is why there is a sacrifice, and a Church, and prayer, and fasting. Because the soul has many wounds, therefore remedies have been devised for them, and for every single wound of the soul a corresponding medicine has been prepared. You have the Church offering sacrifices, the prayers of the fathers, the administration of the Holy Spirit, the memory of the martyrs, the assembly of the faithful, and many things of the kind which have power to recall you from iniquity unto justice. If you do not come to invoke the martyrs, what excuse have you got?... You say, ‘I am a sinner and cannot come’. Because you are a sinner, come. Or do you not know that those very men who stand before the altar have contracted sins? They are clothed in flesh and blood, yet we do not refuse to teach when we cast our eyes on the ocean of God’s goodness. If you enter in, you have not this against you, for you are subject to teaching. As for us, the higher our dignity, the greater is our guilt. It is one thing for the man, who is subject to teaching, to sin, and another for the teacher. Nevertheless, we do not refuse to impart discipline, or fall into negligence under pretext of humility. It was a divine ordering that priests themselves should fall into sin. Now listen to what I mean. If the teachers themselves, if priests had not sinned and been subjected to the ordinary passions of life, they would have become inhuman and relentless towards others. Therefore, He designed that priests, too, and rulers should be under the dominion of their feelings, so that from what they themselves experience they should extend pardon to others. God has always pursued this course, not only now but of old: He allowed those to whom He was going to entrust His Church and His people to fall into sin, so that on account of their own shortcomings they might become merciful to others. If they had not sinned, they would not have made a single excuse for sinners, but, wholly merciless, would have excluded all from the Church. Let me show you by an example that it is so, and that I do not speak from conjecture. Peter was to be entrusted with the keys of heaven and with the multitude of the people. For what were the Lord’s words to him? Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. For Peter was somewhat severe, and if he had been faultless how would he have excused his disciples? This was why the Divine Goodness brought about a certain fall on his part, that from what he himself experienced, he might become kind to others. And consider the man who is allowed to fall into sin,—Peter, the chief of the Apostles, the irremovable foundation, the immutable rock, the leader of the Church, the sure harbour, the invincible pillar. Peter it was who had said to Christ, Even if I should die with Thee I will not desert Thee; Peter who had confessed the truth by divine revelation: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God: this Peter going in on the night of Christ’s betrayal and standing by the fire to warm himself, a certain maid-servant went up to him and said, Yesterday thou wert with this man, and Peter answered, I know not the man. Just before he had said, Even if I should die with Thee; now he denies Him and says, I know not the man. O Peter! is this thy promise? Thou hast not endured torments nor stripes, but at a single word from a maid-servant—thou hast denied. Wilt thou deny, Peter? As yet there are neither torments, nor stripes, nor blows, nor angry passions, nor princes, nor outstretched swords, neither edicts, nor threatening emperors, nor sentence to death, neither prisons, nor precipices, nor seas. There are none of these things, yet thou hast already denied Him: I know not the man. Again the maid said to him, Yesterday thou wert with this man. And he answered her: I know not the man. Who is making thee deny? No one in authority, but a woman, and she a poor doorkeeper, a captive unworthy of an answer: at her word thou deniest! This is wonderful indeed! A maid-servant, a harlot going up to Peter disturbed his faith. Peter, the pillar, suffered no temptation: she only opened her mouth and that pillar was shaken, that bulwark was moved. What seest thou before thee, Peter, whilst thou deniest? A miserable maid-servant, a wretched doorkeeper. This is what thou seest, and dost thou deny? Now for the third time she says: Yesterday thou too wert with this man, and he denied for the third time. And Jesus looking at him, recalled his own words to his mind, and he began to weep tears of contrition for his sin. Still Jesus pardoned him, knowing that as a man he had had a human weakness. But as I have said, on this account He was about to entrust him with a whole people, so that, not being hard or without sin, he might not be without mercy for his own brethren. He fell into sin, that, considering his own fault and his Lord’s pardon, he also might extend a merciful forgiveness to others, which, according to divine dispensation should reconcile them to God. He who was to be entrusted with the Church was allowed to sin; the pillar of the churches, the harbour of faith, Peter the teacher of the world, was allowed to sin in order that his forgiveness might become the basis of mercy for others. Why do I say these things? Because we priests who sit upon a throne and teach are fettered by sins. This is why neither angel nor archangel has been entrusted with the priesthood, for they are without sin, in order that they should not through severity at once strike down sinners amongst the people. A man born of man was entrusted with this throne, a man held subject himself to pleasure and to sin, so that in receiving a sinner, mindful of his own failings, he might be gentler to that sinner. For if the priest were an angel and were to receive a dissolute man, he would kill him on the spot, not being acquainted with this passion. On this account if an angel had the sacerdotal authority, he would not teach, but he would kill the man in anger through his not being an angel: for this reason it was a man with the knowledge and experience of his own faults, that he might pardon sinners, and not be moved by anger, that the Church might not be vacant through the Synagogue.